ABSTRACT
One of the signature features of the American response to the COVID-19 pandemic has been the degree to which perceptions of risk and willingness to follow public health recommendations have been politically polarized. This paper will succinctly review research showing that every phase of the pandemic and key policies were polarized, including judgments of risk, spatial distancing, mask wearing, and vaccination. We will describe the role of political ideology, partisan identity, leadership, misinformation, and mass communication in this public health crisis. We will then assess the overall impact of polarization on the progression of the pandemic, offer a analysis of key policy questions, and identify a set of research questions for scholars and policy experts. Finally, we will include policy recommendations for avoiding the same mistakes in future public health crises
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
Changing collective behaviour and supporting non-pharmaceutical interventions is an important component in mitigating virus transmission during a pandemic. In a large international collaboration (Study 1, N = 49,968 across 67 countries), we investigated self-reported factors that associated with people reported adopting public health behaviours (e.g., spatial distancing and stricter hygiene) and endorsed public policy interventions (e.g., closing bars and restaurants) during the early stage of the pandemic (April-May 2020). Respondents who reported identifying more strongly with their nation consistently reported greater engagement in public health behaviours and support for public health policies. Results were similar for representative and non-representative national samples. Study 2 (N = 42 countries) conceptually replicated the central finding using aggregate indices of national identity (obtained using the World Values Survey) and a measure of actual behaviour change during the pandemic (obtained from Google mobility reports). Higher levels of national identification prior to the pandemic predicted lower mobility during the early stage of the pandemic (r = -.40). We discuss the potential implications of links between national identity, leadership, and public health for managing COVID-19 and future pandemics.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
In a high-risk environment, such as during an epidemic, people are exposed to a large amount of information, both accurate and inaccurate. Following exposure, they typically discuss the information with each other. Here, we assess the effects of such conversations on beliefs. A sample of 126 M-Turk participants rated the accuracy of a set of COVID-19 statements (pre-test). They were then paired and asked to discuss these statements (low epistemic condition) or to discuss only the statements they thought were accurate (high epistemic condition). Finally, they rated the accuracy of the initial statements again (post- test). We do not find an effect of the epistemic condition on belief change. However, we find that individuals are sensitive to their conversational partners and change their beliefs according to their partners’ conveyed beliefs. This influence is strongest for initially moderately held beliefs. In exploratory analyses, we find that COVID-19 knowledge is predicted by trusting Doctor Fauci, not trusting President Trump, and feeling threatened by COVID-19, whereas believing COVID-19 conspiracies is predicted by trusting President Trump, not trusting Doctor Fauci, news media consumption, social media usage, and political orientation. Finally, we find that news media consumption positively predicts believing COVID-19 conspiracies, even when controlling for demographic variables including political ideology, and that this effect is not driven by a particular news network, but instead it is a general effect of news media consumption.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
During a global health crisis, people are exposed to vast amounts of information from a variety of sources. Here, we assessed which information sources could increase knowledge about COVID-19 (Study 1) and the COVID-19 vaccines (Study 2). In Study 1, a US census matched sample of 1060 Cloud Research participants rated the accuracy of a set of statements and then were randomly assigned to one of 10 between-subjects conditions of varying sources providing belief-relevant information: a political leader (Trump/Biden), a health authority (Fauci/CDC), an anecdote (Democrat/Republican), a large group of prior participants (Democrats/Republicans/Generic), or no source (Control). Finally, they rated the accuracy of the initial set of statements again. Study 2 involved a replication with a sample of 1876 Cloud Research participants, and focused on COVID-19 vaccine information and vaccination intention. In both studies, we found that participants acquired most knowledge when the source of information was a generic group of people. Surprisingly, knowledge accumulation from the different information sources did not interact with participants’ political affiliation. However, information accumulation interacted with political affiliation in predicting vaccination intention.